Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-24
THURSDAY. 80. FEBRUARY "a. 1887
The President Pro Ten.

Nearly hundred years after the
ratification Of the Federal Constitution,
and although the President pro tenn. OF
the United States Senate had for nearly
ali that time been by law a successort to
tho Office of President of the United
States, Chief-Justice CHASE, so it is
said, wrote or inspired series of arti-
Giles for the National intcNigenccr de-
nying that member OF the Senate
could succeed to the Office of President
OF the United States. This series of
articles made a profound impression
upon the minds of the legal fraternity;
and the final result was the passage by
Congress not very long ago of law I'M
der which the President pro tenn. of
the Senate cannot succeed to the Office
of President of the United States.
II is time for the United States Senate
10 reconsider and abolish another old
usage. We allude to the custom OF
electing o President pro tenn. Of the
Senate to serve beyond the expiration
of the congressional term during which
he was elected. A Congress dies once
in every two years. The term of all
the members of the lower house is the
same and expires on the 4th of March
of every other year by constitutional
limitation. The Senate is continuing
body. That is to say, the term of only
one third of the Senators expires every
other year. But every Congress thus
expires and the Senate is q part OF
Congress. The Senators whose term
will begin on the Attn of next month
have the constitutional right to partici-
pate in the election of the President
pro tenn. Of the Senate who is to pre-
side over their deliberations. Nay,
each of them has the right TO run for
that office and to be voted for by his
brother Senators.
Nobody denies the right of the Sen
ate to elect a new President pro tenn.
whenever that body chooses to do so.
A new one may be elected every day in
the week. Our point is that he ought
TO be elected, as the Speaker of the
House of Representatives,, by the body
as it is to be constituted after the 4th OF
March, and not by body one third of
whose members will be out of the Sen
ate after the 4th of March. 1t is a
double wrong. Twenty-six Senators
vote who have no right to vote, and
twenty-six Senators are deprived of the
right to vote who ought to be allowed
to vote.
Eut if the new Senate can elect new
President pro tenn. at any time on or
after the 18th OF March, what difference
does it make? Read what the Wash
iugton Post of yesterday says on this
point. I'VE change word in il, but it
does not affect the argument.) We
quote the Post:
"Some good constitutional lawyers
say that if Sherman continued to serve
until Congress adjourned, then when
the new Senate should meet (say on the
4th of march, the first business of the
Senate would be the election of Pre-
sident pro tomporc, and that no one
but President pro tcmpOre could
swear ia new senators. New senators
would have no vote in the election, in
which only the twenty-six Democratic
end the twenty-four Republican sena-
tors holding over could vote. A Demo
cratic President pro teRpOre would
thus be elected. Then twelve new
Domocratic and fourteen new Republi-
can senators would be sworn in, making
thiIty-eight Democrats and thirty-eight
Republicans in the Scnste-not enough
Republicans to unseat the Democratic
President pro teMpOre until they could
catch a Democratic member absent"
All that is wrong. The whole Senate,
new and old members, should meet to-
gether, as the new and old members of
the House of Representatives do, and
should then elect a new President pro
tenn. of the Senate.
The reader will SEQ that JoHN SHEB-
MANS resignation of the Office of the
President pro tcm was a little bit of
strategy. He resigned day before yes
terday II was done to prevent RID
DLEBERoER from having the casting
vote in the new Senate under the cir
cunsiances mentioned by the Post
al OF which goes 10 prove the truth
Of our contention.